The Bigots’ Last Hurrah

[Indy Coug]

You're saying this was the original intent of the statement? No way. This is your spin on it.

The original intent of the statement was clearly an analogy to the political battle over gay marriage.

Personally, I don't believe the statment was ever made by Pres. Monson.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The war is member vs member, not member vs gay "rights".

Perhaps you are joking. But if you (or anyone) really see it that way, then I find that quite disturbing.

[byu71]

Turthfully, I don't think the Gettysburg analogy is a very good one, and I was using my question to point that out. If Indy is correct and Pres. Monson is meaning that this gay-rights thing is a member vs member battle, then which group is the pro-slavery group (meaning the group that has taken a ridiculous position against civil rights) and which group is the anti-slavery group (the group that wants to extend civil rights)?

Additionally, I see no reason to think that this gay marriage issue is going to lead to massive "spiritual" casualties. It is pretty much a dead issue at this point in Church. While it is still referenced here and there, are there vigorous debates and angry mobs of members threatening to leave the Church? There have been some, yes....but anything close to epic proportions? Hardly.

To answer your question, I do not think those that oppose gay marriage are slave-owner equivalents. I do think we are denying gays some basic civil rights and using religion to do such, but I personally don't equate an inability to legally marry with indentured servitude, rape, and torture. Again, this is why I think the Gettsyburg analogy isn't very good. I think it was used for dramatic effect even though it really made little sense and was poorly thought out. It apparently worked, though, because some people are still using it.

I would agree the "gettysburg" reference is over the top just as those who use slavery as equivalent to opposing gay marriage is over the top.

I have my reasons for opposing gay marriage and I don't feel like I am a bigot or trying to thwart another persons rights. Even though I oppose it, I certainly wouldn't devote any of my money or time to fight it. Just my vote.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Personally, I don't believe the statment was ever made by Pres. Monson.

Maybe not. But it appears to have been used by church leaders.

http://monterey.montereycountyweekly...wAd?oid=574575

The same process of assimilation into the social conservative movement may be taking place for Mormons. Soon after the California Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage constitutional, Catholic Bishop of San Francisco George Niederauer asked the LDS church to join a multifaith coalition against gay marriage. By June, Elder Lance Wickman, a top LDS official, called Prop 8 “The Gettysburg of the culture war.” Church members fell in line, ready for a fight.

[byu71]

Maybe not. But it appears to have been used by church leaders.

http://monterey.montereycountyweekly...wAd?oid=574575

This shows how reporters skew their reports or are just totally ignorant. Church members "did not" fall in line. Some may have, but that isn't what was stated, what the reporter said was "church members fell in line."

[TripletDaddy]

I try to stay away from this topic because I know that people on both sides hold strong beliefs. Still, against my better judgment, I'll wade in. What rights are denied gay couples through Prop 8 that could not be granted through civil unions?

I agree....we have rehashed this a million times. it can be searched on cougarguard.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This shows how reporters skew their reports or are just totally ignorant. Church members "did not" fall in line. Some may have, but that isn't what was stated, what the reporter said was "church members fell in line."

Why do you say that? From all accounts I have read, the majority of members did in fact fall in line and support the effort.

[smokymountainrain]

I try to stay away from this topic because I know that people on both sides hold strong beliefs. Still, against my better judgment, I'll wade in. What rights are denied gay couples through Prop 8 that could not be granted through civil unions?

I'm curious about this answer as well.

From a personal standpoint, I couldn't care less whether or not gay people can get married. It's a non-issue in my mind. If I had a gun to my head and were forced to vote, I would most likely say let them get married.

That said, if this is an issue of being denied rights, I think the answer to cowboy's question matters.

(edit) I just saw DDD's response. Apparently it's not that simple.

[byu71]

Why do you say that? From all accounts I have read, the majority of members did in fact fall in line and support the effort.

First off, to fall in line would indicate they weren't in line already. Sounds like they are like soldiers ready to do what the commander says. A member in Cal. may on their very own have come to the conclusion about Gay marriage in alignment with the churches position. Remember, even some non-mormons are not for gay marriage.

I would also note that a good percentage of posters on this board did not fall in line. Steve Young's wife I hear did not fall in line. My guess easily 30% of the membership of the church did not fall in line.

I very much dislike the idea that members of the church are like robots ready to be turned on at the switch of some person in Salt Lake and told how to act and think.

[TripletDaddy]

I would agree the "gettysburg" reference is over the top just as those who use slavery as equivalent to opposing gay marriage is over the top.

I have my reasons for opposing gay marriage and I don't feel like I am a bigot or trying to thwart another persons rights. Even though I oppose it, I certainly wouldn't devote any of my money or time to fight it. Just my vote.

Your response sort of bears out my point. As members of the Church, you and I may disagree on how to vote on the matter, but that is about as far as it goes. We likely are not going to fight over it and I doubt you or I will end our membership as a result. Hardly a Gettysburg event.

I also get the sense that many members see the eventuality of gay marriage, so they don't even really have the stomach for a long-term and protracted battle over what is quickly becoming be a moot point.

[Jeff Lebowski]

First off, to fall in line would indicate they weren't in line already. Sounds like they are like soldiers ready to do what the commander says. A member in Cal. may on their very own have come to the conclusion about Gay marriage in alignment with the churches position. Remember, even some non-mormons are not for gay marriage.

I would also note that a good percentage of posters on this board did not fall in line. Steve Young's wife I hear did not fall in line. My guess easily 30% of the membership of the church did not fall in line.

I very much dislike the idea that members of the church are like robots ready to be turned on at the switch of some person in Salt Lake and told how to act and think.

I think your 30% number is way too high.

[TripletDaddy]

I'm curious about this answer as well.

From a personal standpoint, I couldn't care less whether or not gay people can get married. It's a non-issue in my mind. If I had a gun to my head and were forced to vote, I would most likely say let them get married.

That said, if this is an issue of being denied rights, I think the answer to cowboy's question matters.

(edit) I just saw DDD's response. Apparently it's not that simple.

I think the rough framework of the argument is as such:

Churches should do religious marriages.
Government should do civil unions and stay entirely out of the marriage business.

If the gov extends "marriage" to one group, it has to have a legal basis for excluding another.

Those opposed to gay marriage mostly use personal moral/religious reasons for opposing the government from extending marriage to gays. There have been very few, if any, legal reasons given to deny gay marriage.

Like I said, this is a rough framework. It would be better to do a search on cougarguard, as the issue was beaten with a stick for months over there.

It is a good question, though.

[cowboy]

I agree....we have rehashed this a million times. it can be searched on cougarguard.

Thank you. I'll make you a deal. I'll respect your opinion if you respect mine. I'm not a bigot, and you're not an apostate. We both have valid reasons for our positions, but we disagree on this issue. I suspect we also disagree on the acceptability of Wranglers in a business setting.

[byu71]

I think your 30% number is way too high.

I guess it is in how you define membership. I don't know of a single member of the church I associate with who gave money or devoted time to the prop. 8 campaign. I think if you define membership as someone who is a member and participation as someone who gave time or money, I believe my 30% might actually be low.

I would guess a good many members worldwide are the same as I am when it comes to the issue. I don't consider myself as "falling in line" by any means although right now I would vote for prop. 8.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I guess it is in how you define membership. I don't know of a single member of the church I associate with who gave money or devoted time to the prop. 8 campaign. I think if you define membership as someone who is a member and participation as someone who gave time or money, I believe my 30% might actually be low.

I would guess a good many members worldwide are the same as I am when it comes to the issue. I don't consider myself as "falling in line" by any means although right now I would vote for prop. 8.

Huh? You don't even live in California.